Does Art Need No Subject Matter Than Itself?

Kazimir Malevich: "White on white" 1917

The Cubism, Surrealism and Futurism Exhibitions are ongoing at Museum of Modern Art in New York. Most of the paintings at fourth floor were there year and half ago, and even The Starry Night by Van Gogh is still there, I feel nothing special. Last year I didn't pay attention of the Constructivism which normally addresses really simple lines and colors. Kazimir Malevich's White on White really catches tourists' eyes and I'm wondering how they understand the painting by staring at the over-abstract painting or the completely black board. Seriously, how do normal people react while looking at the painting with one vertical brushstroke on?

The Constructivists declared that art must be free from the subject matter other than itself. Malevich was good at geometric abstraction so called Suprematist Composition. I guess the world in his eyes is so uncomplicated that only geometry and basic colors can stand for the living things. I fully respect the different genres of art but would rather admire the artworks that I at least understand the message the painter was trying to deliver.

The Dance, Henri Matisse

.

The Young Ladies of Avignon, Pablo Picasso

Speaking of the abstract painting, Moma also is having The Young Ladies of Avignon by Pablo Picasso. To be more accurate, he is known for founding the Cubist movement. The way he treated the space creates a three-dimensional atmosphere that gives people enough room to imagine and contemplate. Same as the Dance by Henri Matisse, the painting with less detail and intense color addresses the feeling of emotional liberation and Hedonism. Those are the artworks that I could understand by reading the captions. Instead, the ones by Malevich are unable to be understood on beholder's eye. If art needs to subject matter than itself, then the whole point of art should be none. Even the none could be the meaning to certain degree, the purpose of being enjoyed by the majority has been failed. The art market cannot be treated as the retail market where people buy in the fast pace. The appreciation of art derives from the pleasure of looking at it. When the beauty has lost, the point of appreciating is lost too. Admittedly, the definition of beauty has its own diversity and cannot be forced. However, the development of art would have vanished if the majority didn't show the interests. None of the famous artists would succeed unless their works has been recognized by the majority.

The visit to Moma was just fine, because some of the exhibitions were nothing but another world where only people with emotional sickness live. A World of Its Own: Photographic Practice in the Studio. All the photographs were black and white films. Some were just the randomly taken pictures that now are being hung in the museum just because of the historian reason. One of the photographer said that he was an artist so everything he did in the studio should be art. That just totally doesn't make any sense.

I still insist that the great artwork should be perceived for the sake of human beings.